Re: horse left the barn, etc, was <draft-iab-doi-04.txt> (Assigning Digital Object Identifiers to RFCs)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>Ugh.  That seems painful to me.  Assigning DOI's to RFCs could happen
>external to the RFC itself, and could be something that doesn't cause a
>lot of friction.  But if we are polluting RFCs with these DOI numbers,
>and that we are forced to make an effort to do so as part of the
>agreement with the DOI vendor, I think this whole thing sounds like a
>bad idea and contrary to what the IETF usually stand for.

Here's a thought experiment.  What sort of bad things would happen if
the RFC publisher were to add DOIs in the manner described in this
draft for a couple of months?

Well, whatever they are, they've already happened, since all RFCs
published since early May have included DOIs.

Surely we have something more useful to talk about.

R's,
John




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]